代写毕业论文

论文代写:管理者的法律问题

论文代写:管理者的法律问题

问题:体育场企业私人有限公司是由三位董事约翰,帕特里夏和迪安私人拥有的股份公司。本公司遵循“2001年公司法”(Cth)(CA)的法律原则和法规。澳大利亚安全与投资委员会负责公司行为和合法化。这是要找出是否有任何违反董事责任和任何其他违反“公司法”可能已经发生的帕特里夏或丹

法:

公司法2001(Cth)

ASIC vs Adler(No 3)(2002)168 FLR 253

根据“2001年公司法”(“公司法”)第191(1)

根据“2001年公司法”(第Cth)第191(3)

根据公司法2001(Cth),s588M

根据公司法2001(Cth),s588G

申请:公司的董事有责任根据宪法和公司法2001(Cth)下的任何法律规定进行公司业务。所有董事都对公司负有信托义务。这意味着董事必须通过服从自己的利益来为别人的利益行事。在这项义务之下,除非公司允许,否则任何人不得获得个人利益。受托责任的董事不能从公司或外部以任何形式作出秘密利益。如果任何董事在这个责任下做了不当行为,将会通过违反公司法,一般法或公司章程的行为承担责任。在这种情况下,帕特里夏违反了董事责任,也违反了“2001年公司法”的原则和规定(公司法2001(Cth))。公司董事中的信息只是被Patricia告知,因为Patricia打电话给姐姐购买了Stadium Enterprises Pte Ltd正在购买的公司的股份。

论文代写:管理者的法律问题

Issue: Stadium Enterprises Pte Ltd is private owned shareholding company by three directors John, Patricia and Dean.  This company follows the legal principles and regulations according to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA).  Australian Security and Investment commission takes care of the corporations act and legalizations. This is to find whether there is any of breaches of Directors Duties and of any other breaches of the Corporations Act that may have occurred by Patricia or Dan

Law:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

ASIC vs Adler (No 3) (2002) 168 FLR 253

According to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 191(1)

According to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 191(3)

According to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s588M

According to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s588G

Application: The directors of the company have the responsibility for carrying on the company’s business subject to the restrictions imposed by the constitution and any statuary provisions under corporations Act 2001 (Cth). All the directors are under fiduciary duty towards the company.  This means the directors have to act for some other’s benefits by subordinating one’s interests. Under this duty, no one is permitted for their personal benefits unless permitted by the company. The directors under the fiduciary duty cannot make secret benefits form the company or from outside in any form. If any directors under this duty do improper actions will be liable through a breach of the corporations act, general law or the company’s constitution.  In this case, Patricia breaches the Directors Duties and also breaches the Corporations Act 2001 principles and regulations (Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)).  The information which was among the directors of the company only was informed to personal benefits by Patricia as Patricia called her sister to buy the shares of the company which was being bought by Stadium Enterprises Pte Ltd.